OHIM BLOCKS LEGO REGISTRATION

Anna Carboni of Wilberforce Chambers has kindly provided the IPKat with a copy of the OHIM Cancellation Division’s decision invalidating Lego's registration of the shape of its Lego bricks as a Community trade mark. In doing so, the Cancellation Division applied the ECJ’s Philips v Remington decision, making a number of novel and/or interesting points, including:

* “There is no rule in Community trade mark law that bars anything that has been patented or could have been patented from CTM registration. Rather, the general principle is that one and the same product or item can be protected by various industrial property rights, provided that the conditions for each of those rights are fulfilled individually”.

* The Cancellation Division split the ground for the refusal of registration under Art.7(e)(ii) of Regulation 40/94 into 2 questions: (i) is the shape of the goods necessary to obtain a result? (ii) is the result that is obtained of a technical nature? The term “technical” for these purposes must be interpreted in the same way as it is interpreted in patent law, which cuts down on the risk of an overlap between patent and trade mark protection.

* Regarding the first question the Cancellation Division stated “The question is not whether the design of the item is functional, but whether the function of an item is actually performed by the shape [i.e. the shape for which registration is applied, rather than by some other feature of the product in question]”.

* Where a 3-D shape contains elements that are precluded from registration under Art.7(1)(e)(iii), such objections can only be overcome if the mark comprises other elements that are distinctive on their own.

* Acquired distinctiveness cannot overcome an objection under Art.7(1)(e) since the public interest protected by that article, which is to enable competitors to access the same technical solution has nothing to with distinctiveness. (The IPKat is somewhat puzzled by this point, because the need to keep certain marks free for other traders is said to be what is protected by Art.7(1)(c) (descriptiveness) yet there has been no suggestion that objections under that article cannot be overcome by acquired distinctiveness).

The IPKat notes that it is actually rather rare for Philips v Remington to be applied since many companies prefer to argue that functional shapes lack distinctiveness. The reason for this is often that proving that a mark is unregistrable under Art.7(1)(e) is tricky and technical, as this case demonstrates.

Naughty Lego here
Serious Lego here, here and here
Magical Lego here
Constructive Lego here and here
Lego that says “Ni” here

The IPKat says “You’re having too much fun looking at Lego sites, Ilanah”.
OHIM BLOCKS LEGO REGISTRATION OHIM BLOCKS LEGO REGISTRATION Reviewed by Anonymous on Monday, September 06, 2004 Rating: 5

3 comments:

  1. The hyperlink on the word "Lego's" directs you to Wilberforce Chambers' web site and not to the decision itself.

    Is this intentional?

    I am having problems locating the decision.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nope, it wasn't deliberate. The link should have been to www.lego.com but there seems to be some sort of problem with hyperlinking on Blogger and it insists on keeping the link pointing to Wilberforce Chambers, despite my best efforts to change it.

    To my knowledge, the OHIM decision isn't on the OHIM website yet. However, if you'd like a copy send an email to theipkat@yahoo.co.uk and we'll send it to you as an attachment.

    ReplyDelete
  3. RSS Announcer instantly and automatically submits your RSS feeds

    ReplyDelete

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.